CHICAGO'S  FINANCIAL  DILEMMA 


REPLY   OF  THE    CHICAGO    BUREAU   OF   PUBLIC    EFFICIENCY    TO 
A  LETTER  FROM  THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON 
FINANCE    AND    THE     CITY     COMPTROLLER     ASKING 
CIVIC    ORGANIZATIONS    TO    CO-OPERATE    IN 
URGING    A    SPECIAL    SESSION    OF    THE 
LEGISLATURE  TO  PROVIDE  FINAN- 
CIAL RELIEF  FOR  THE  CITY 


CHICAGO  BUREAU  OF  PUBLIC  EFFICIENCY 


DECEMBER.  1917 


!rif!!('!»:';i  I  Willi!''';,  uwiJiwri,''!*../!!.".'-'.! : 

PRIOR  PUBLICATIONS. 


Method   of  :^repurln?  and  Admlnlsterins  the  Bndfiret  of   Cook  ConntT*  nUaoia. 
January,  Ittll. 

Proposed  Pnrcbaae  of  Votlnir  Macblnes  hy  the  Board  of  Electloa  CommUMioaera 
of  the  City  of  Chlcneo.    May,  1011.     (Out  of  Prlat.) 

Street  Pavemeat  Laid  la  the  City  of  Chicago:     Aa  laqalry  latb  PavlaK  MaterlaLi, 
Method*  aad  neaalta.     Jaae,  1911.     (Out  of  Priat.) 

"4,     ElectToIyala  of  IVatfcr  Pipes  la  the  City  of  Chtcaso.     Jaly,  1811.     (Out  of  Prlat.) 

6.  Adntlnlstratloa  of  the  Offiee  of  Recorder  of  Cook  Coahty*  Illlaoia.  September, 
1911. 

6.  A  Plea  for  Publicity  ia  the  Ofllce  of  County  Treaanrer.     October,  1011.     (Out  of 

Prlat.) 

7.  Rcpairiog:  Aaphalt  Pavenmcat:     Work  Done  for  the  City  of  Chleagro  Uader  Coa- 

traet  of  1011.     October,  1011.     (Out  of  Print.) 

4l  Vhe  Mnoldpal  Court  Acts:  Two  Related  Propoaltloaa  Upon  Which  the  Voter* 
of  CblcaKO  'Will  Be  Aaked  to  Pasii  JudKinent  at  the  Electloa  of  November  7 — 
Vote  No.     October  31,  1811.     (Out  of  Prlat.) 

O.  The  Water  Work*  Syatem  of  the  City  of  Chlcagro.  By  Dabaey  H.  Maury.  De- 
cember. 1811.     (Out  of  Prlat.) 

10.  Bureau  of  Street*;  Civil  Service  ConuniMalou;  and  Special  AaaeaHmeat  Accoaat- 

tasT  Syatem  of  the  City  of  Chicago.     Decentber,  1011.     (Out  of  Prlat.) 

11.  Admlnlatratloa   of  the  OfBce   of   Coroaer  of   Cook   Conaty,   lUiaoIa.     Deoeatber, 

1911. 

12.  Admlaiatratlon  of  the  OJBce  of  Sheriff  of  Cook  Couaty,  lUlaoIs.     December,  1011. 

18.  Administration  of  the  Office  of  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court  aad  of  the  Office  of 

Clerk  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  County,  Illlaola.     December,  1011. 

14.     The  JudKc*  and  the  County  Fee  Office*.     December  10,  1911.     (Out  of  Print.) 

16.     General    Summary    and    Conclnalona    of    Report    oa    the    Park    Goverameat*    of 
Chlcaieo.     December,  1911. 

16.  The   Park  Goveraments   of   ChlcaKrot     An   Inquiry  lato   Their   OrKaai*at!oa   aad 

Method*  of  AdminlMtratloa.     December,  1011. 

17.  OfficeM  of  the  Clerk*  of  the  Circuit  and  Superior  Court*  i  A  Supplemeatal  laqniry 

lato  Their  Orgaaizatloa  and  Method*  of  Admlaiatratlon.     November,  1812. 

Ig.     AdmlniNtrntlon  of  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  County  Court  of  Cook  Couaty, 
IlllnoiN.     November,  1912. 

19.  Office   of    Sheriff   of   Cook   Couaty,   Illinoia:      A    Supplemeatal    laqnlry    Iu<o    Ita 

Or^anlzatloa  and  Method*  of  AdialuiHtratloa,     November,  1912. 

20.  GrovTlaer  Co«t  Of  Election*  la  Chicago  aad  Cook  Couaty.     December  30,  1812. 

-1.     The    Voting    Machine    Coiitriiet.     A    Pron-st    ApralUMt    ItM    RcooKoitloa    la    Aay 
Form  by  the  City  Couacll  of  the  City  of  Chicagro.     Jaauary  1,  1913. 

22.  The  Office  of  the  Couaty  Treaaurer  of  Cook  Couaty,  Illlaol*.     Aa  Inquiry  lato  the 

AdmlaiatratloB   of  It*  FtiinnccH  with   Special  Refereaoe  to  the  Q.ue«tlOB   of 
Interest  oa  Public  Fuads.     November,  1818. 

23.  The  Nlaeteen  L.ocal  Goverameut*  la  ChlcnKo.     December,  1813. 

24.  The  Bond  Isauca  to  Be  Voted  Upon  April  7.  1014.     March  30,  1»1J, 

26.  A  S^bcoud  Plea  for  Pablldty  la  the  Office  of  Couaty  Treaaarer.     July  0,  1814. 
2d.  The   Nineteen   Liocal  GovernmeatH   la   Chicagro.     (Secoad   Editloa.)    March,   1815. 

27.  Ualflcatlou  of  Local  Oovernmeat*  In  ChlcuKo.     Jaauary,  1917. 

28.  The  City     Maaaver  Plaa  for  Ohlcn^qt.    October,  1817. 

28.     like  County  Bead  Inaue*  to  lie  Voted  tTpea  November  6,  1817.     October  80.  1917. 

:tO.     Prlainr>'  I^ayn   and   Klcctlun    Dayin   as   HoUdayn.      Aa    iBHtnnoc   of  Governmental 

AliMurdity   aud  Waste.     November  .*>,   1J»17. 


CHICAGO'S  FINANCIAL  DILEMMA 


REPLY  OF  THE  CHICAGO   BUREAU   OF   PUBLIC   EFFICIENCY  TO 
A  LETTER  FROM  THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON 
FINANCE    AND    THE    CITY    COMPTROLLER    ASKING 
CIVIC  ORGANIZATIONS  TO   CO-OPERATE  IN 
URGING   A   SPECIAL  SESSION   OF  THE 
LEGISLATURE  TO  PROVIDE  FINAN- 
CIAL    RELIEF    FOR    THE    CITY 


CHICAGO  BUREAU  OF  PUBLIC  EFFICIENCY 


315  PLYMOUTH  COURT 


CHICAGO    BUREAU 

OF 

PUBLIC  EFFICIENCY 


TRUSTEES 


Julius  Rosenwald,  Chairman 
Alfred  L.  Baker,  Treasurer 

Onward  Bates  Victor  Elting 

George  G.  Tunell  Allen  B.  Pond 

Walter  L.  Fisher  Frank  I.  Moulton 


Harris  S.  Keeler,  Director 


REPLY  TO  A  LETTER  URGING  A  SPECIAL  SESSION  OF 

THE   LEGISLATURE  TO  PROVIDE  FINANCIAL 

RELIEF  FOR  THE  CITY  OF  CHICAGO 


Chicago,  December  12,  1917. 

Hon.  John  A.  Richert,  Chairman,  Committee  on  Finance, 
Hon.  Eugene  R.  Pike,  City  Comptroller, 
City  Hall,  Chicago. 

Gentlemen  : — 

Replying  to  your  letter  of  November  20,  1917,  I  am 
directed  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Chicago  Bureau  of  PubUe 
Efficiency  to  say  that  the  Bureau  stands  ready  to  co- 
operate with  the  City  Council  and  other  City  authorities 
in  requesting  Governor  Lowden  to  call  a  special  session 
of  the  Legislature  whenever  it  is  shown  that  such  a  ses- 
sion is  necessary  to  provide  financial  relief  for  the  City 
and  an  adequate  program  for  relief  has  been  outlined. 

In  the  limited  time  available  since  the  receipt  of  your 
letter,  it  has  been  impossible  for  the  Bureau  to  make  a 
complete  and  detailed  investigation  either  of  the  immedi- 
ate situation  or  of  the  developments  which  have  led  up 
to  it.  However,  from  a  preliminary  survey  it  appears 
that  the  City  is  facing  a  serious  deficit  in  its  corporate 
fund.  It  is  equally  apparent  that  this  deficit  is  not  due 
to  any  decrease  in  revenue  up  to  the  present  time,  but 
that  it  is  to  be  attributed  entirely  to  the  practice  that  has 
prevailed  in  recent  years  of  permitting  appropriations 
and  expenditures  to  exceed  income. 

In  1912  and  1913  there  was  a  shortage  in  revenue  in 


4  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efflciency 

the  corporate  fund  on  account  of  a  court  decision  and 
pending  the  enactment  of  remedial  legislation  it  was 
found  practicable  to  curtail  expenditures  so  that  during 
the  year  1913  revenue  exceeded  expenditures  by  approxi- 
mately $1,000,000.  At  the  close  of  that  year  the  surplus 
was  $4,500,000. 

During  each  of  the  years  1914,  1915,  and  1916,  the 
City's  revenue  averaged  about  $2,000,000  more  than  in 
1913.  The  greatest  increase  during  either  of  these  three 
years  came  in  1916,  when  the  amount  exceeded  that  of 
1913  by  $3,150,000  and  that  of  1915  by  about  $1,800,000. 

Definite  figures  for  1917  are  not  available,  but  there  is 
no  reason  for  thinking  that  the  City's  income  will  be 
reduced  materially,  if  at  all,  below  what  it  was  in  1916 ; 
in  other  words,  the  1917  revenue  will  exceed  that  of  1913 
by  more  than  $3,000,000  and  that  of  1915  by  nearly 
$2,000,000.  There  will  be  a  loss  of  approximately  $550,000 
during  the  current  year  on  account  of  the  smaller  number 
of  saloon  licenses  but  this  will  be  more  than  offset  by  an 
increase  in  taxation  due  to  increased  property  valua- 
tions; by  special  taxes  to  cover  expenditures  for  em- 
ployes' pension  funds  and  for  playground  purposes; 
and  by  $340,000  diverted  from  the  special  assessment 
unclaimed  rebate  fund  authorized  by  the  last  Legislature 
and  used  in  paying  for  public  improvements.  These 
items  in  the  aggregate  will  exceed  the  loss  through  saloon 
licenses  by  approximately  $250,000. 

The  large  increase  in  the  revenue  of  1916  and  of  1917 
as  compared  with  that  of  1915  and  prior  years  is  due  to 
a  considerable  extent,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
the  authorization  by  the  Legislature  of  additional  special 
taxes  for  police,  firemen's  and  municipal  employes'  pen- 
sion funds,  for  judgments  and  for  playground  purposes ; 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  5 

and  also  to  the  use  of  the  water  fund  and  the  special  as- 
sessment unclaimed  rebate  fund  for  general  corporate 
purposes.  The  authorization  of  the  special  taxes  above 
mentioned  accounts  in  part  for  the  tax  rate  of  the  City 
increasing  from  $1.66  in  1913  to  $1.97  in  1916. 

Prior  to  1916,  the  police  and  firemen's  pension  funds 
received  certain  portions  of  the  fire  insurance  tax;  of 
saloon  and  other  licenses;  and  of  municipal  court  fines. 
Beginning  in  1916,  these  pension  funds  were  given  a 
direct  property  tax  in  place  of  the  license  and  other 
moneys  previously  received,  which  then  reverted  to  the 
corporate  fund  and  thereupon  became  available  for  gen- 
eral purposes.  The  net  gain  to  the  corporate  fund 
through  the  1915  pension  legislation  was  approximately 
$425,000  in  1916,  and  further  legislation  which  became 
operative  in  1917  providing  a  direct  tax  for  the  other 
municipal  employes'  pension  fund  and  modifying  the 
firemen's  pension  law  will  increase  this  amount  to  nearly 
$625,000  in  1917. 

Prior  to  1916,  it  had  been  the  policy  of  the  City  to  pay 

judgments  against  it  for  the  most  part  by  the  issuance 

of  bonds.    The  practice  was  to  permit  unpaid  judgments 

to  accumulate  until  they  aggregated  a  substantial  sum 

and  then  to  ask  for  a  bond  issue  with  which  to  pay  them. 

The  last  attempt  to  secure  a  bond  issue  for  this  purpose 

occurred  in  1914.    In  commenting  on  the  situation  at  that 

time,  the  Bureau  in  a  statement  issued  March  30,  1914, 

said: 

''As  for  the  bonds  which  it  is  proposed  to  issue 
for  the  payment  of  judgments,  it  is  bad  policy  to 
encourage  this  method  of  meeting  liabilities  which 
should  really  be  paid  out  of  current  revenues.  Per- 
sonal injury  claims,  for  instance,  are  and  should  be 
regarded  as  current  expenses.  If  there  are  judg- 
ments that  grow  out  of  contracts  for  permanent  im- 


6  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 

provements,  these  can  be  paid  by  means  of  the  bonds 
already  authorized.  To  pay  other  judgments  out 
of  bond  proceeds  is  merely  to  encourage  litigation 
in  order  to  make  current  funds  available  for  other 
purposes." 

The  proposed  bond  issue  here  referred  to  was  defeated 
by  a  referendum  vote.  In  1915,  however,  the  City  author- 
ities went  to  the  Legislature  and  secured  an  amendment 
to  the  tax  limitation  law  (commonly  known  as  the  Juul 
law)  authorizing  a  special  tax  for  the  payment  of  judg- 
ments in  addition  to  the  tax  for  other  corporate  purposes. 
The  effect  of  this  amendment  is  to  give  judgments  sub- 
stantially the  same  status  as  bonds  for  tax  levying  pur- 
poses. The  principal  difference  is  that  before  bonds  can 
be  issued  and  a  tax  for  their  payment  levied,  the  bond 
proposition  must  be  approved  by  a  referendum  vote, 
while  no  referendum  is  required  as  a  condition  precedent 
to  the  levying  of  a  tax  for  the  payment  of  judgments. 
In  1916  the  tax  rate  for  judgments  was  about  3^  cents, 
and  the  amount  produced  thereby  was  approximately 
$358,000. 

A  development  in  connection  with  this  special  judg- 
ment tax  which  has  come  to  the  attention  of  the  Bureau 
since  the  receipt  of  your  letter  relates  to  the  indebtedness 
of  the  City  to  the  Sanitary  District.  We  are  informed 
that  this  indebtedness,  including  interest,  now  amounts 
to  about  $4,540,000.  Of  this  amount  approximately 
$3,000,000,  including  about  $320,000  for  electric  current, 
is  now  due.  More  than  $1,000,000  of  this  sum  has  already 
been  reduced  to  judgments.  One  million  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars  not  yet  due  will  mature  in  April,  1918. 
"We  understand  that  the  authorities  of  the  City  and  the 
Sanitary  District  are  considering  a  plan  under  which,  if 
carried  out,  the  Sanitary  District  will  be  permitted  to 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  7 

secure  further  judgments  covering  the  entire  amount  due 
and  to  become  due,  with  a  view  to  securing  the  payment 
of  the  same  through  a  tax  levy  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Juul  law  above  referred  to.  This  plan,  if  consummated, 
will  ultimately  add  about  45  cents  to  the  tax  rate,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  increase  of  70  cents  hereinafter  mentioned 
which  is  proposed  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  require- 
ments of  the  year  1918. 

The  playground  tax  of  not  to  exceed  5  cents  was  au- 
thorized by  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature,  but  did 
not  become  operative  in  time  for  the  City  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  it  in  1917  to  the  extent  of  the  entire  appropri- 
ation for  playground  purposes.  Indirectly  this  tax,  by 
releasing  for  other  purposes  a  part  of  the  corporate  fund 
heretofore  expended  on  playgrounds,  will  increase  that 
fund  by  about  $100,000  in  1917  and  this  amount  will  prob- 
ably be  increased  in  succeeding  years. 

The  water  fund  is  a  special  fund  which  can  lawfully 
be  used  only  for  purposes  properly  related  to  the  water 
works  business.  During  the  past  two  years  a  sum  vary- 
ing from  $450,000  to  $500,000  a  year  has  been  expended 
from  this  fund  for  the  operation  and  maintenance  of 
sewage  pumping  stations  and  the  sewer  system.  This 
expense  had  been  previously  borne  by  the  corporate  fund. 
It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Bureau  that  the  cost  of  operating 
and  maintaining  the  sewer  system  is  not  properly  charge- 
able to  the  water  fund  and  that  the  use  of  the  fund  for 
such  purposes  is  a  violation  of  both  the  spirit  and  the  letter 
of  the  law  defining  the  purposes  for  which  the  water  fund 
may  be  used. 

The  special  assessment  unclaimed  rebate  fund  was  au- 
thorized by  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature.  Un- 
claimed special  assessment  rebates  amounting  to  a  large 


8  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 

sum  have  accumulated  in  the  city  treasury,  and  the  City 
is  authorized  to  set  them  aside  in  a  special  fund  to  be 
used  for  certain  specific  purposes.  The  aggregate  amount 
of  these  rebates  is  not  known,  but  at  the  time  the  matter 
was  before  the  Legislature  it  was  estimated  at  approxi- 
mately $1,250,000.  The  chief  argument  advanced  in  sup- 
port of  this  piece  of  legislation  by  its  sponsors  was  that 
it  would  provide  a  fund  to  be  used  to  pay  special  assess- 
ment bonds  as  they  matured,  the  fund  to  be  subsequently 
reimbursed  as  the  assessments  were  collected  from  prop- 
erty owners.  It  was  said  that  under  this  arrangement 
contractors  would  do  special  assessment  work  at  lower 
prices,  which  would  be  of  material  advantage  to  property 
owners.  The  Act  as  passed,  however,  permits  the  abso- 
lute expenditure  of  the  fund  for  the  payment  of  the  gen- 
eral public's  share  of  special  assessment  work,  which 
heretofore  has  been  paid  from  the  corporate  fund,  and 
during  the  six  months  that  the  law  has  been  in  effect  about 
$340,000  has  been  used  in  this  way.  Of  course  if  this 
practice  is  continued  it  will  not  be  long  until  the  fund  is 
exhausted,  and  the  principal  purpose  for  which  it  was 
supposedly  authorized — the  prompt  payment  of  special 
assessment  bonds — will  be  defeated. 

Another  Act  passed  by  the  last  Legislature  relating  to 
special  assessments  promises  to  increase  the  corporate 
fund  by  about  $250,000  annually.  For  practical  purposes 
the  Act  was  inoperative  in  1917  but  this  revenue  will  be 
available  in  1918,  provided  some  method  is  devised  for 
anticipating  its  collection. 

While,  as  above  pointed  out,  the  revenue  of  the  past 
four  years  has  been  about  $2,000,000  annually  more  than 
in  1913,  during  the  same  period  expenditures  have  aver- 
aged approximately  $5,600,000  more  annually  than  dur- 
ing 1913.    This  has  operated  to  exhaust  entirely  the  sur- 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  9 

plus  of  $4,500,000  which  existed  four  years  ago  and  to 
leave  the  City  facing  an  actual  deficit  at  the  close  of  this 
year  reliably  estimated  at  from  $750,000  to  $1,000,000,  in 
addition  to  its  indebtedness  due  the  Sanitary  District 
amounting  to  $3,000,000.  As  a  result  of  this  situation 
the  Bureau  is  informed  that  the  City  is  having  difficulty 
in  meeting  its  current  payrolls  and  that  for  several 
months  contract  liabilities  in  excess  of  $50  have  not  been 
paid.  This  method  of  meeting  payments  to  contractors 
and  others  furnishing  supplies  to  the  City  may  have  much 
to  do  with  the  high  prices  which  it  pays. 

In  connection  with  this  matter  it  will  be  recalled  that 
in  1913  a  bond  issue  of  $2,880,000  was  authorized  to  pro- 
vide a  working  cash  fund  so  that  the  City  might  meet  its 
obligations  promptly  and  in  a  businesslike  way.  The 
depletion  of  the  surplus  account  has  not  only  used  up 
entirely  the  proceeds  of  this  bond  sale,  but  has  resulted 
in  a  dangerous  practice  in  connection  with  the  issuance 
of  anticipation  tax  warrants. 

As  you  know,  the  tax  revenue  of  any  given  year  is  not 
collected  until  the  succeeding  year.  Because  of  this,  the 
City  is  authorized  to  borrow  in  anticipation  of  its  collec- 
tion. The  law,  however,  expressly  limits  the  amount  to 
be  borrowed  to  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  tax  levy  and 
prescribes  that  only  moneys  collected  from  the  levy  shall 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  loan.  In  recent  years  it  has 
been  the  practice  to  borrow  from  the  ''traction  fund'* 
and  to  exceed  the  seventy-five  per  cent  limit.  In  1915, 
$500,000  more  than  the  entire  amount  collected  from 
taxes  was  borrowed  in  this  way,  and  the  excess  was  bor- 
rowed after  the  City  authorities  were  apparently  in  a 
position  to  approximate  closely  the  total  amount  which 
would  ultimately  be  collected  from  the  tax  levy.  Had  the 
law  been  strictly  followed  in  repaying  the  loan,  the  'Hrac- 


10  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 

tion  fund"  would  have  suffered  a  loss  of  $500,000.  In- 
stead of  permitting  this  to  occur,  however,  $500,000  of 
1917  revenue  was  used  to  take  up  the  loan,  and  thus 
restore  the  "traction  fund." 

The  foregoing  figures  do  not  include  expenditures  from 
bond  funds,  the  vehicle  tax  fund,  or  the  water  fund,  ex- 
cept in  so  far  as  the  latter  has  been  diverted  to  general 
corporate  uses.  In  this  connection  also  attention  might 
be  directed  to  the  fact  that  since  the  close  of  1914  expendi- 
tures from  the  water  fund  have  exceeded  the  revenue  of 
that  fund  by  approximately  $4,000,000,  thus  exhausting 
the  surplus  of  that  amount  which  was  on  hand  three 
years  ago. 

It  must  be  obvious  that  the  practice  year  after  year  of 
permitting  the  City's  expenditures  to  exceed^its  income 
will  inevitably  lead  to  disastrous  results. 

Your  letter  is  entirely  silent  upon  these  conditions  and 
no  suggestion  is  made  therein  as  to  what  means  are 
going  to  be  taken  to  meet  the  current  deficit.  Presumably 
the  overdue  obligations,  except  those  to  the  Sanitary  Dis- 
trict, will  be  carried  over  to  next  year  as  unpaid  bills 
and  thus  add  to  the  embarrassments  described  in  your 
letter.  As  has  been  already  pointed  out,  if  the  Sanitary 
District  indebtedness  is  handled  by  allowing  judgments 
to  be  taken  upon  it  which  may  ultimately  be  paid  through 
a  special  tax  levy,  the  amount  of  such  levy  will  be  in  addi- 
tion to  the  seventy  cent  increase  in  the  tax  rate  which  is 
now  proposed  to  meet  the  1918  situation. 

Referring  to  the  specific  matters  mentioned  by  you, 
we  understand  that  the  shortage  anticipated  in  1918,  un- 
less legislative  relief  is  granted,  will  result  in  part  from 
a  loss  in  revenue  and  in  part  from  certain  demands  for 
increased  expenditures. 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  11 

The  loss  of  revenue  mentioned  will  ostensibly  be  due 
to  two  causes:  (a)  a  reduction  in  saloon  licenses,  and 
(b)  certain  losses  in  taxes  due  to  court  decisions. 

To  speak  of  these  court  decisions  as  resulting  in  a  loss 
in  taxes  is  somewhat  misleading.  If  we  understand  the 
situation  correctly,  the  City  in  1916  attempted  to  increase 
its  tax  revenue  by  persuading  the  County  Clerk  to  act 
upon  a  new  interpretation  of  the  tax  limitation  laws  and 
to  increase  without  specific  legislative  authority  the  tax 
rate  which  had  previously  been  used  in  extending  the 
City's  tax  for  corporate  purposes.  A  number  of  large 
taxpayers  refused  to  pay  the  increase  thus  levied,  and 
were  sustained  in  their  refusal  by  the  lower  court.  Thou- 
sands of  small  taxpayers,  however,  who  could  not  afford 
to  contest  the  matter  paid  the  increased  tax,  and  by  that 
procedure  the  City  profited  in  the  1916  levy  to  the  extent 
of  between  $200,000  and  $300,000  to  which  it  was  not 
entitled  if  the  decision  of  the  lower  court  is  right. 

The  statement  that  $700,000  of  revenue  will  be  lost  in 
this  way  in  1918  assumes  that  the  decision  of  the  lower 
court  will  be  followed  in  making  the  1917  tax  rate  and 
that  the  County  Clerk  will  refuse  to  increase  the  rate  as 
he  did  in  1916.  But  if  this  be  true,  it  is  scarcely  a  correct 
statement  of  the  matter  to  say  that  the  City  will  sustain 
a  loss  of  this  $700,000,  which  implies  a  reduction  as  com- 
pared with  the  amount  received  in  some  prior  year,  when 
heretofore  the  City  has  neither  received  such  a  sum  nor 
been  entitled  thereto. 

We  understand  that  the  estimated  loss  of  $2,000,000  in 
saloon  licenses  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  approximately 
900  saloons  have  gone  out  of  business  this  year  and  upon 
an  estimate  that  1,100  more  will  do  the  same  next  year. 
As  to  the  accuracy  of  this  estimate  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing. 


12  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficietwy 

Assuming  it  to  be  correct,  however,  a  loss  of  this  sort, 
as  above  pointed  out,  implies  a  reduction  as  compared 
with  the  amount  received  in  some  other  year.  We  think, 
too,  that  the  statement  that  there  will  be  a  loss  of  $2,000,- 
000  or  $2,700,000  in  revenue  in  1918  also  fairly  implies  a 
loss  in  the  City's  revenue  when  considered  as  a  whole.  If 
this  be  so,  may  we  inquire  what  prior  year  was  taken  as 
the  basis  of  the  comparison?  As  we  view  the  situation, 
if  1916  be  taken  as  the  basis,  the  net  loss  (taking  into 
account  not  only  losses  but  also  increases  due  to  addi- 
tional taxes)  will  be  about  $1,250,000;  if  1917  be  taken  as 
a  basis,  the  net  loss  will  be  about  $1,450,000.  If,  how- 
ever, 1915  (the  year  prior  to  the  large  increases  due 
to  the  pension  and  other  legislation  above  referred  to) 
be  taken  as  a  basis,  there  will  be  a  net  increase  of  about 
$500,000.  These  figures  are  in  substantial  agreement 
mth  the  Comptroller's  statement  to  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee that  in  1918  the  total  revenue  will  be  approximately 
$24,000,000.  The  foregoing  figures  assume  that  the  use 
of  the  special  assessment  unclaimed  rebate  fund  will  be 
discontinued  in  1918.  If  the  City  continues  to  use  this 
fund  as  it  did  in  1917,  when  about  $340,000  was  expended, 
the  above  loss  figures  will  be  reduced  and  the  gain  figure 
will  be  increased  accordingly.  If  the  use  of  the  water 
fund  for  corporate  purposes,  which  the  Bureau  believes 
is  illegal,  is  discontinued,  the  loss  in  revenue  in  1918  as 
compared  with  that  of  the  two  preceding  years  will  be 
increased  approximately  $500,000.  But  even  if  the  use 
of  the  water  fund  and  of  the  special  assessment  rebate 
fund  is  discontinued,  the  1918  revenue  will  still  be  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  that  of  1915.  Of  course  there  is 
a  wide  difference  between  any  of  these  figures  and  the 
figure  of  $2,700,000  stated  in  your  letter. 

As  to  the  demands  upon  the  City  for  increased  expendi- 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  13 

tures  due  to  increased  cost  of  supplies  and  to  the  main- 
tenance and  operation  of  new  functions  authorized  by 
bond  issues,  it  will  of  course  be  conceded  that  the  war 
has  increased  such  cost  and  that  new  functions  do  entail 
additional  expense  for  operation  and  maintenance.  Your 
statement  is  entirely  lacking  in  detail  on  these  matters, 
however,  and  the  Bureau  is  not  sufficiently  informed  upon 
them  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
figures  given.  Keferring  specifically  to  the  Municipal 
Pier  and  the  waste  disposal  plant  as  illustrations  of  how 
the  operation  of  functions  authorized  by  bond  issues  de- 
pletes the  City's  resources,  it  would  seem  that,  with  fixed 
charges  for  interest  on  the  cost  of  construction  provided 
for  by  a  separate  tax  levy,  the  Municipal  Pier  should  at 
least  pay  ordinary  operating  and  maintenance  charges 
and  from  what  data  we  have  been  able  to  get  apparently 
so  far  the  net  burden  on  the  corporate  fund,  if  there  is 
any,  is  not  large.  It  would  seem  also  that  if  the  waste 
disposal  plant  were  operated  in  an  efficient  and  business- 
like way  the  sale  of  its  product  would  be  sufficient  to  pay 
at  least  the  cost  of  operating  and  maintaining  the  plant. 
In  this  case,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Municipal  Pier,  the  in- 
terest on  the  bonds  issued  for  the  construction  of  the 
plant  is  paid  from  a  special  tax  levy  and  does  not  come 
from  the  general  corporate  fund. 

Supplementing  what  is  said  in  your  letter  with  the 
statement  made  by  Alderman  E-ichert  to  the  legislators 
who  met  on  December  7  to  consider  these  matters,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  $1,800,000  proposed  for  increased  wages 
is  based  upon  the  equivalent  of  a  ten  per  cent  increase 
for  all  City  employes.  Assuming  that  there  may  be  a 
necessity  for  raising  salaries  in  some  cases,  we  respect- 
fully submit  that  any  intelligent  opinion  as  to  the  reason- 
ableness of  this  item  must  be  predicated  upon  a  more  de- 


14  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 

tailed  statement  respecting  it.  We  should  have  some 
hesitancy  in  expressing  approval  of  a  special  session  of 
the  Legislature  to  provide  a  twenty-five  per  cent  increase 
in  pay,  as  recently  proposed  by  some  judges  of  the 
Municipal  Court,  for  the  clerks  and  bailiffs  of  that  court 
who  now  in  practically  all  cases  receive  $1,200  a  year  or 
more,  which  the  efficiency  staff  of  the  Finance  Commit- 
tee has  reported  is  higher  on  the  average  than  the  rate 
of  pay  received  by  other  City  employes  of  a  similar 
grade. 

The  need  for  one  thousand  additional  policemen  is  ap- 
parently predicated  largely  upon  the  fact  that  as  stated 
by  the  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  last  week, 
due  to  war  conditions,  approximately  700  members  of  the 
present  force  are  assigned  to  special  guard  duty  at  mil- 
itary supply  and  munitions  plants  and  other  places.  The 
Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  also  suggested  that 
arrangements  were  under  consideration  with  the  United 
States  Government  under  which  a  military  guard  might 
be  provided  for  some  such  places.  Altogether  aside 
from  the  financial  saving  involved,  there  are  some  as- 
signments for  which  the  military  guard  would  seem  to 
have  a  distinct  advantage.  The  Bureau  believes  that  the 
effects  of  such  an  arrangement  should  be  thoroughly  con- 
sidered and  exhausted  in  determining  what  increase  in 
the  police  force  should  be  made  at  the  present  time. 

In  this  connection  we  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  com- 
munication of  the  General  Superintendent  of  Police,  sub- 
mitted to  the  City  Council  April  18,  1917,  in  which  he 
recommends  reducing  the  number  of  police  stations  now 
operated.  In  this  communication  he  estimates  that  by 
reducing  the  number  of  stations  from  45  to  22  a  saving  in 
overhead  expense  aggregating  approximately  $850,000 
annually  can  be  made,  and  says  that  through  this  saving 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  15 

and  the  reorganization  of  the  police  force,  which  such  a 
consolidation  would  make  possible,  750  additional  police 
officers  could  be  provided  for  duty  on  the  streets.  In 
explaining  the  need  for  more  men  on  the  streets,  the  Su- 
perintendent of  Police  said  that,  contrary  to  the  prevalent 
idea,  police  stations  themselves  do  not  afford  protection 
to  citizens ;  that  the  only  effective  manner  in  which  police 
protection  is  furnished  is  by  placing  policemen  on  the 
streets.  He  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  City  should 
not  operate  more  than  22  stations  and  said  that  it  was 
the  tendency  in  many  large  cities  of  this  country  to  re- 
duce the  number  of  stations.  Notwithstanding  this,  we 
understand  that  no  action  has  been  taken  upon  his  recom- 
mendation. 

In  explaining  the  failure  to  make  the  reduction  thus 
recommended,  Alderman  Richert  stated  to  the  Finance 
Committee  at  its  meeting  of  December  10  that  whenever 
it  was  proposed  to  discontinue  the  operation  of  a  station 
the  citizens  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  station  protested. 
In  view  of  the  statement  of  the  Superintendent  of  Police 
as  to  the  lack  of  protective  value  of  police  stations  them- 
selves to  a  community,  such  protests  would  seem  to  have 
little  merit,  and  we  are  disposed  to  accept  as  a  more  rea- 
sonable explanation  of  the  matter  a  statement  made  by 
the  Superintendent  of  Police  himself  at  a  prior  meeting 
of  the  Committee  in  which  he  said  in  effect  that  the  con- 
solidation proposed  would  eliminate  the  necessity  for 
many  commanding  officers  and  would  disturb  a  number 
of  ''soft  snaps"  in  the  police  department. 

The  need  for  additional  firemen  we  understand  is  occa- 
sioned in  part  at  least  by  the  operation  of  the  double 
platoon  ordinance.  The  Bureau  recognizes  that  the 
merits  of  the  double  platoon  system  have  raised  one  of 
the  most  highly  controverted  subjects  in  the  City  Hall, 


16  Chicago  Burecm  of  Public  Efficiency 

and  that  involved  in  this  controversy  is  the  relative  ef- 
ficiency of  the  fire  department  under  the  present  system 
as  compared  with  the  former  plan  of  operation.  The 
Bureau  knows  of  no  well  authenticated  opinion  upon  this 
phase  of  the  matter.  Certainly  the  Bureau  has  none. 
But  the  Bureau  recalls  that  when  the  double  platoon  ordi- 
nance was  before  the  City  Council  its  advocates  in  urg- 
ing its  passage  insisted  that  under  it  the  efficiency  of  the 
department  could  be  maintained  without  adding  to  the 
force. 

The  proposition  to  continue  paying  City  employes  in 
the  military  service  of  the  country  the  difference  between 
their  salaries  as  soldiers  and  their  salaries  when  in  the 
City's  employ  raises  an  important  question  of  public 
policy.  Without  expressing  an  opinion  upon  the  matter, 
the  Bureau  suggests  that  there  are  several  phases  of  the 
situation  which  should  be  considered  in  coming  to  a  con- 
clusion. Should  this  policy  apply  to  men  without  de- 
pendents as  well  as  to  men  who  have  dependents?  How 
far,  if  at  all,  should  the  fact  that  the  government  pro- 
vides food  and  clothing  be  taken  into  account  in  adjust- 
ing differences  in  salary?  To  what  extent  should  the 
financial  relief  for  dependents,  which  the  government 
itself  has  made  provision  for  since  the  present  policy 
of  the  City  was  inaugurated,  influence  the  amount  to 
be  paid  by  the  City?  Incidentally,  we  are  informed  that 
the  present  expenditures  for  this  purpose  are  aggre- 
gating only  about  $20,000  a  month.  Unless  the  number 
of  such  employes  is  to  be  greatly  increased  wuthin  the 
next  few  months,  the  estimate  of  $500,000  for  that  pur- 
pose next  year  would  seem  to  be  rather  high. 

Considering  the  foregoing  demands  upon  the  City  as  a 
whole,  it  is  perhaps  well  to  point  out  that  so  far  as  it  may 
be  found  necessary  to  meet  them,  the  increased  cost  will 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  17 

be  offset  to  a  limited  degree — ^perhaps  $350,000 — by  the 
saving  which  will  be  effected  in  1918  through  the  opera- 
tion of  the  central  registration  Act  governing  registra- 
tions for  elections  and  the  special  assessment  collection 
Act  passed  by  the  last  Legislature.  Undoubtedly  there 
are  also  other  ways  in  which  economies  in  present  ex-, 
penditures  can  be  effected. 

The  Bureau  respectfully  submits  that  before  a  special 
session  of  the  Legislature  is  called  and  before  the  Bu- 
reau and  other  civic  organizations  may  properly  be  ex- 
pected to  join  in  the  request  for  such  a  session,  the  City 
authorities  should  furnish  more  specific  information 
than  is  contained  in  any  statement  yet  put  forth  as  to  the 
necessity  for  legislative  relief.  Civic  organizations  do 
not  serve  the  public  to  advantage  by  blindly  joining — or 
refusing  to  join — in  a  call  for  a  session  of  the  Legislature 
to  raise  taxes,  without  definite  information  as  to  the  nec- 
essity for  new  laws  and  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  re- 
lief measures  to  be  sought.  Such  organizations  ought 
not  to  be  asked  to  function  in  that  way.  Moreover,  the 
public  is  entitled  to  know  definitely  how  great  is  the  need 
and  to  what  extent,  if  at  all,  the  possibility  of  curtailing 
expenses,  of  rearranging  appropriations,  and  of  increas- 
ing efficiency  in  the  expenditure  of  present  funds  has 
been  considered  with  a  view  to  meeting  existing  condi- 
tions without  immediate  relief  from  the  Legislature.  Of 
course,  nothing  should  be  done  which  would  endanger  the 
health  and  safety  of  the  City. 

The  present  state  of  the  City's  financial  affairs  is  not 
new.  War  conditions  in  adding  to  the  cost  of  govern- 
ment have  merely  accentuated  the  situation.  Months  ago 
the  need  for  a  comprehensive  survey  of  City  finances  was 
pointed  out  and  a  resolution  providing  therefor  intro- 
duced in  the  City  Council.    No  action  has  been  taken  in 


18  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 

the  matter,  however.  The  situation  is  now  too  acute  to 
await  the  completion  of  such  a  survey,  but  upon  such  an 
investigation  as  the  City  authorities  can  make  it  may  be 
found  that  the  necessities  are  not  so  great  as  has  been 
supposed,  and  that  by  curtailing  expenses  as  was  done 
under  somewhat  similar  circumstances  in  1912  and  1913 
emergency  legislation  can  be  avoided. 

Assuming  on  the  other  hand  that  immediate  legislative 
relief  is  found  necessary,  the  Bureau  believes  that  before 
a  session  of  the  Legislature  is  called  the  public  should  be 
given  definite  information  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  relief  to  be  sought. 

The  position  taken  by  Governor  Lowden  at  the  meet- 
ing between  himself  and  the  delegation  of  City  officials 
who  called  upon  him  with  reference  to  this  matter  on  No- 
vember 30,  when  he  said  that  the  City  of  Chicago  should 
formulate  a  specific  program,  embodied  in  a  bill  or  bills, 
and  that  it  should  make  a  showing  of  public  support  for 
the  program  before  expecting  him  to  call  the  Legislature 
in  special  session,  is  eminently  sound. 

Any  program  submitted  should  include  provisions 
which  will  give  assurances  for  permanent  improvement 
in  methods,  to  the  end  that  a  similar  condition  in  the 
City's  financial  affairs  may  not  be  expected  to  develop 
again  within  a  few  years.  Chicago  cannot  go  on  forever 
meeting  recurring  financial  crises  by  the  simple  expedient 
of  authorizing  higher  taxes.  The  Bureau  believes  that 
in  the  present  situation  the  City  authorities  should  do 
more  than  merely  ask  for  large  additional  taxing  power; 
that  they  should  ask  and  that  the  public  should  demand 
the  reorganization  of  the  government  along  lines  de- 
signed to  insure  greater  efficiency  and  economy  than  is 
now  practicable.     Disinterested  public  opinion  is  clear 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  19 

upon  the  point  that  something  of  this  sort  needs  to  be 
done.  In  this  connection  the  Bureau  desires  to  urge  the 
consideration  of  the  plan  of  reorganization  embodied  in 
its  recent  report  entitled  ''The  City  Manager  Plan  for 
Chicago,"  which  carries  the  draft  of  a  bill  representing 
much  thought  and  study.  The  bill  provides  among  other 
things  for  reducing  the  number  of  city  elections,  which 
would  mean  large  money  savings,  and  for  electing  alder- 
men on  non-partisan  lines,  propositions  which  already 
have  received  the  approval  of  the  City  Council. 

Eeferring  to  the  proposal  which  has  been  made  for  an 
additional  special  tax  of  70  cents  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  police  department,  it  would  seem  that  even  if  it  may 
be  found  necessary  to  increase  taxes  to  some  extent,  a 
seventy-cent  increase,  which  would  raise  the  present  tax 
rate  from  $1.97  to  $2.67,  is  probably  excessive.  But  aside 
from  this,  the  proposition  to  provide  a  special  tax  for 
the  police  department  and  thus  to  establish  the  practice 
of  segregating  the  City's  general  corporate  revenue  into 
special  funds  is  fundamentally  wrong.  The  plan  for  a 
special  police  tax  was  presented  to  the  legislators  at  their 
meeting  last  week  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  The 
Corporation  Counsel  explained  that  to  increase  the  gen- 
eral corporate  tax  rate  would  operate  to  restrict  the  tax- 
ing power  of  the  Sanitary  District  and  of  the  park 
boards,  and  that  the  proposed  legislation  would  avoid 
this  embarrassment.  The  Corporation  Counsel  may  be 
right  in  this  assumption.  However,  the  recent  pension 
laws  contain  the  same  tax  provisions  as  are  contained  in 
the  proposed  police  act,  and  for  the  purpose  of  deter- 
mining tax  rates  the  County  Clerk,  acting  upon  what  he 
considers  competent  legal  advice,  has  construed  the  lan- 
guage of  the  pension  laws  in  a  manner  which,  if  applied 
to  the  proposed  police  act,  would  produce  the  very  results 


20  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 

which  the  Corporation  Counsel  seeks  to  avoid.  If  the 
proposed  police  act  shall  be  passed,  the  courts  will  un- 
doubtedly be  called  upon  to  determine  whether  the  Cor- 
poration Counsel  or  the  County  Clerk  is  right  in  his  in- 
terpretation, but  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  pro- 
posed police  law  would  prove  the  measure  of  expediency 
which  is  prophesied  for  it. 

In  conclusion,  we  wish  again  to  assure  you  that  the 
Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  is  ready  to  co-oper- 
ate with  you  and  your  associates  in  requesting  a  special 
session  of  the  Legislature  whenever  a  convincing  and  au- 
thoritative statement  has  been  made  by  the  responsible 
City  officials  as  to  just  what  amount  of  additional  reve- 
nue is  actually  required  by  the  City,  for  just  what  it  is  to 
be  expended,  and  just  how  it  is  to  be  raised.  Why  should 
not  the  City's  budget  be  formulated  now  as  the  basis  for 
such  a  statement? 

Respectfully  yours, 

Haeris  S.  Keeler, 

Director. 


LETTER  TO  WHICH  THE  FOREGOING  COMMUNICATION 

IS  A  REPLY 


November  20,  1917. 

Chicago  Bueeau  of  Public  Efficiency 
315  Plymouth  Court,  Chicago. 

Gentlemen  : — 

At  a  meeting  of  the  City  Council  November  5,  a  reso- 
lution was  passed  directing  the  Committee  on  Finance  to 
wait  upon  his  Excellency,  Governor  Lowden,  to  request 
that  a  special  Session  of  the  State  Legislature  be  called 
to  give  the  City  necessary  financial  relief. 

The  City  of  Chicago  will  face  a  shortage  in  its  corpor- 
ate revenues  for  1918,  due  to  the  failure  of  renewal  of 
licenses  of  a  large  number  of  saloons  and  other  miscel- 
laneous establishments.  The  loss  on  this  account  to  the 
City  will  undoubtedly  reach  $2,000,000.  This  shortage 
may  be  increased  by  a  loss  in  the  proceeds  from  taxation 
of  more  than  $700,000  unless  the  findings  of  the  lower 
court  are  reversed  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

Due  to  special  conditions  arising  on  account  of  the  war 
situation,  the  Department  of  Police  has  detailed  approxi- 
mately 500  patrolmen  to  special  purposes,  and  that  de- 
partment has  appealed  to  the  City  Council  for  1,000  ad- 
ditional patrolmen  for  the  year  1918.  These  patrolmen 
are  paid  but  $75  per  month  for  the  first  year's  service, 
$83.33  per  month  for  the  second  year's  service  and $110.00 
per  month  thereafter.  It  will  be  impossible  in  the  future 
to  obtain  competent  men  to  serve  as  patrolmen  at  these 
rates  of  pay.  There  is  also  a  necessity  for  an  increase 
in  the  fire  fighting  forces  of  the  City.  It  is  necessary 
also  for  the  City  to  revise  its  schedules  of  pay  for  firemen 


22  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency 

in  order  to  get  competent  men  to  serv^e  in  this  depart- 
ment in  the  future.  The  health  protection  forces  of  the 
City  should  also  be  augmented  by  additional  employes 
to  meet  conditions  due  to  a  rapidly  increasing  popula- 
tion. These  increases  are  imperative  for  the  adequate 
protection  of  the  City. 

Following  the  action  taken  by  many  of  the  large  priv- 
ate employers  of  the  locality  in  generally  increasing  the 
wages  of  employes  to  meet  the  necessities  of  life  due  to 
changed  conditions,  the  City's  employes  have  generally 
appealed  to  the  City  Council  for  increased  rates  of  pay. 
Materials  and  supplies  used  in  the  operation  and  main- 
tenance of  the  City's  activities  have  increased  beyond 
expectation. 

During  the  past  several  years  the  voters  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  have  authorized  various  bond  issues  for  adding 
to  or  creating  new  municipal  functions.  No  provision 
was  made,  however,  for  extra  revenue  to  meet  the  ad- 
ditional expense  incurred  for  the  operation  and  main- 
tenance in  connection  with  these  new  functions.  The 
Municipal  Contagious  Disease  Hospital,  the  Municipal 
Pier,  the  extension  and  rehabilitation  of  the  Street  Light- 
ing System  and  the  Waste  Disposal  activities  are  ex- 
amples of  these.  The  added  expense  due  to  their  oper- 
ation and  maintenance  has  tended  to  deplete  the  City's 
already  meager  resources. 

Briefly  summarized  the  estimated  losses  of  revenue  to 
the  City  and  the  estimated  increased  cost  of  operation 
are  as  follows : 

Loss  in  licenses $2,000,000 

Loss  in   taxes,   through  decisions   of 

lower  court 700,000 

Increased  cost  of  supplies  for  opera- 
tion and  maintenance 400,000 

Demands  for  increased  wages 1,800,000 


Chicago's  Financial  Dilemma  23 

Extra  cost  of  maintenance  and  opera- 
tion of  new  functions  authorized 

by  bond  issues 600,000 

Additional  police 1,000,000 

Additional  firemen   500,000 

Salaries  of  600  enlisted  city  employes.     500,000 

Total   .$7,500,000 

In  the  face  of  all  the  foregoing  demands,  the  revenue 
of  the  City  from  taxation  has  only  increased  within  the 
past  three  years  on  an  average  of  about  $187,000  per  year. 

Unless  financial  relief  is  forthcoming  the  City  Comp- 
troller and  the  City  Council  will  be  forced,  not  only  to 
deny  any  added  municipal  service  which  is  imperatively 
needed,  but  will  be  required  to  reduce  present  inadequate 
police,  fire  and  health  protection  service  by  twenty  per 
cent;  to  reduce  garbage,  ash  and  street  cleaning  service 
by  forty  per  cent ;  to  eliminate  all  the  repairs  and  main- 
tenance of  public  works  and  buildings  chargeable  to  the 
corporate  fund;  and  seriously  curtail  all  administrative 
functions.  These  reductions  vnW  have  serious  effects  on 
the  well  being  of  this  community. 

Your  earnest  co-operation  is  solicited  in  assisting  the 
City  Council  in  its  appeal  to  His  Excellency,  Governor 
Lowden,  the  State  Legislature,  and  especially  to  the  Sen- 
ators and  State  Representatives  from  the  various  dis- 
tricts in  Cook  County,  and  to  urge  upon  them  the  neces- 
sity of  a  Special  Session,  to  be  held  as  soon  as  possible, 
to  give  the  City  a  remedial  measure  that  will  offer  finan- 
cial relief. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     John   A.   Richebt, 

Chairman,  Committee  on  Finance. 

(Signed)     Eugene  Pike^ 

City  Comptroller. 
137 


